JIM CARVER, ET AL.,
v.
STATE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jim Carver pleaded guilty to unlawful liquor manufacturing and received a sentence of a $200 fine or three months' jail time in the alternative. After Carver surrendered and began serving jail time before the bond's ninety-day period expired, the state enforced the bond against his sureties. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that execution on the bond should not be enforced while the defendant is serving the alternative jail sentence.
The court held that execution on the bond should not be enforced while the defendant is serving the alternative sentence. If the alternative sentence of confinement is fully satisfied, the bond should be canceled. The judgment against the sureties was improper.
“As the sentence was to pay the fine and costs or, as an alternative, to be confined for three months in the county jail, a double penalty was not required by the sentence”
Establishes that the sentence structure does not impose double punishment since it offers alternative remedies
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarver pleaded guilty to unlawfully manufacturing liquor without a license. He was sentenced to pay a $200 fine and costs or, alternatively, three mon…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The plaintiff in error upon a plea of guilty to an information charging' that he did unlawfully engage in the business of manufacturing liquor containing more than 3.2 per cent, of alcohol by weight without first obtaining a license therefor, was adjudged to be guilty and sentenced to' pay a fine of $200.00 and costs and in default thereof to be confined in the county jail for three months.
' As authorized by the statute, the defendant gave bond with two sureties to pay the fine in ninety days. Secs. 8426-7 C. G. L.
Before the expiration of the ninety days, the defendant surrendered to the sheriff of the county and began serving his alternative term of imprisonment in the county jail. After the expiration of the ninety days, the sheriff certified that the bond had been forfeited. Execution was issued on the bond and in a statutory proceeding' alleging the file*233gality of the execution, a judgment was rendered against the sureties on the bond. Writ of error was taken.
As the sentence was to pay the fine and costs or, as an alternative, to be confined for three months in the county jail, a double penalty was not required by the sentence; and as the defendant surrendered to the sheriff of the county and began serving the alternative sentence o'f confinement in the couty jail, the execution should not be enforced while the defendant is serving the alternative sentence. If the alternative sentence to confinement in the county jail is fully satisfied, the bond should be duly canceled. This could be controlled in the adjudication of the alleged illegality of the execution.
In Laney v. State, ex rel., 100 Fla. 1141, 130 So. 715, the defendant did not surrender and begin serving the alternative sentence of confinement in the county jail before the bond was defaulted.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for appropriate proceedings.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryan v. State, 156 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…he fine and costs and may be satisfied, after default, only by payment. It may be that, before default, the defendant may surrender himself for-service of, the alternate sentence and, after service thereof, thus exonerate-said bond: Carver v. State, 134 Fla. 232, 183 So. 719. No such authority is given the surety and certainly not after default. After default the undertaking is final, definite and due, as far as the surety is concerned.” As stated in Laney v. State, 100 Fla. 1141, 130 So. 715, in reference…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Laney v. State, 100 Fla. 1141 (Fla. 1930)